Fardette v. New York & Stamford Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fardette v. New York & Stamford Railway Co.

198 A.D. 943

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fardette v. New York & Stamford Railway Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 190 A.D. 543 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 15, 1921·Published

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Blackmar, P. J., Rich and Jaycox, JJ., concur; Putnam, J., votes to reverse on the ground of the exceptions at folios 353 and 354 of the record, and on the further consideration that defendant’s duty toward an intoxicated passenger was modified by the fact that such passenger was in the care of a companion who was sober and exercising care toward him, which qualifying circumstance does not appear to have been directly presented to the jury; Mills, J., dissents on the second ground stated by Putnam, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Blackmar, P. J., Rich and Jaycox, JJ., concur; Putnam, J., votes to reverse on the ground of the exceptions at folios 353 and 354 of the record, and on the further consideration that defendant’s duty toward an intoxicated passenger was modified by the fact that such passenger was in the care of a companion who was sober and exercising care toward him, which qualifying circumstance does not appear to have been directly presented to the jury; Mills, J., dissents on the second ground stated by Putnam, J.

Fardette v. New York & Stamford Railway Co., 198 A.D. 943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

198 A.D. 943 (Fardette v. New York & Stamford Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.